[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: helm vs ido
From: |
Thorsten Jolitz |
Subject: |
Re: helm vs ido |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:11:30 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
Thierry Volpiatto <thierry.volpiatto@gmail.com> writes:
>> - how to get rid of helm-completion in the mini-buffer? In Ido, there is
>> C-f, but helm seems to follow more a bondage&submission approach with
>> no way out (or I'm just a new user and did not discover the
>> trick). C-x C-w (write-file) is a good example were completion gets in
>> your way.
>
> If you want to get rid of helm completion in e.g `write-file' when
> `helm-mode' is enabled, and you want `write-file' use ido, customize
> `helm-completing-read-handlers-alist':
> Add write-file => ido.
> Now when using C-x C-w you will have ido completion instead of helm
> completion.
nice, thanks
>> - is ido-completion smarter than helm-completion? Somehow I have the
>> (obviously subjective) feeling that I reach the searched
>> buffer/file/command ... with less effort using Ido. One example might
>> be M-x w3m - with Ido its typing M-x w3 RET, with helm the basic w3m
>> command is not necessary the first choice and some navigation in the
>> completion buffer or some more typing is necessary.
>
> You are using the M-x version enabled with `helm-mode' which is the same
> than vanilla emacs M-x but with helm interface.
> Use `helm-M-x' instead.
I did bind M-x to helm-M-x.
>> Right now I'm back to ido-everywhere, but on the other hand I miss
>> helm-grep, helm-regexp and other amazing stuff this package offers. Do I
>> simply have to study helm more deeply
>
> Yes, probably.
I thought so....
--
cheers,
Thorsten